John, Art,
A reference to this thread has been added to the RDF Issues List at:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
Brian
Art Barstow wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:45:11PM +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> > I'm updating the RDF issues list and came across this discussion.
> >
> > It seems to me that XML is quite clear that the default namespace does
> > not apply to attributes and there is no reason why RDF should be any
> > different.
>
> If you mean Namespaces in XML, then I agree.
>
> > In the example John quoted therefore, SiRPAC is doing the right thing.
> >
> > This is something that does seem to cause some confusion though, so I'm
> > inclined to add it as an editorial issue, rather than as a specification
> > error. Do you agree?
>
> I'm somewhat indifferent about your choices but the examples in
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#ex-Sharing
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#ex-NonBinary
>
> use:
>
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>
> and seem to assume that the default namespace applies to the
> RDF-specific attributes.
>
> Art
> ---